I'll measure it Sunday, was working on my friends Supra all day and forgot to measure the intakes. Those valve guide seals on the 2JZ motor are a pain to change.

 

The B-body cam, does sound like what I'm after, however I can't make a change from the stock camshaft.

On this engine I'm allowed....

Headers and exhaust
wide open intake including CAI, AND TB
wide open computer, AND ignition including sensors such as MAF, and relocated IAT.

Plus .040 overbore, forged pistons, unlimited oiling as long as it's a wet sump and fits the car, balancing, port matching but nothing more than 1" in light flywheel and clutch, and SFI approved damper.

I've taken advantage of all the allowances. Probably the only thing I'd have done different is given the valves a 5 angle cut (technically not legal) and hand fitted a crank scraper instead of the one in the Canton pan....


The 3rd gen cars in my class W/L98's and swapped in T-5's (or T-10's from 82) are putting out 250 RWHP. I have to think that if those same engines could swap in JUST the cam and heads from a stock LT1 they would be real close to 300hp. But with alot of torque.

I would like to stay around 290-300 rwhp, but boost torque...

 

I don't know anything about this stuff really but wouldn't the b-body cam be legal since it was used in the LT1 anyway I mean it is a stock LT1 cam? Not like it is a big aftermarket piece or something. Like I said I am not up on many racing rules but though that in cases like this it was stock parts that had to be used but not necessarily stock to that car, just OEM regular production on some vehicle. Another thought would be maybe advance the cam a tad, it will be more dificcult to do on an LT1 than on a gen1 and you will have to adress your tune since the opti being indexed to the cam means you would be advancing the opti as well but given your limitations this might work.

 

Here's a link to a dyno comparison of the Super Ram to the LT1.... clearly shows the huge increase in bottom end torque, and the big drop in HP over 5,000RPM. Clearly, the torque increases below 5,000RPM would be far more important to Zepher than peak HP above 5,000RPM.

http://www.stealthram.com/dyno/superramvslt1intake.jpg

 

The cars are classed mostly based on generation. Cars listed on the same line of classifications for that class are allowed to update/backdate to different specs withen the models on that line.

For instance an LT1 car could update to an LT4 (because of the 97SS with an LT4) or an LS1. Or an LS1 could swap out the heavier rear brakes for LT1 rear brakes. Or LT1 to larger front brakes of the LS1 and so on.

Major parts like engines and transmission must be swapped as a whole not component swapping. For instance I couldn't just put LT4 heads and cam on an LT1. It would have to be an entire True LT4.


Based on that chart, it looks like the Super Ram falls off on torque at higher RPM but alot more down low. Also looks like the HP is down with the Super Ram, but picks back up at really high RPM.

Is this correct? I'm not 100% on my interpretation since the chart is showing up a little fuzzy for me.



I'm still leaning more toward a traditional TPI setup. Likely an LT1 Super Ram base (since it shouldn't need any modifications, unlike the L98 based parts) then search for used aftermarket runners.

Or for the right price, a modified edelbrock base, and used or SLP runners. Stock ported plenum.

 

From what you state you are looking for the super ram would provide better TQ and HP then a std TPI set up. With that said they do make a TPI base for fast burn heads that would mtch up to the LT1 heads with a lot less work then converting a gen I base. Good luck

 

Fast burn????

Would this be the TPI intake for vortec heads? If so it is nearly as much as the LT1 Super Ram intake....

 

Are you a consistent class or PAX winner? I ask because I don't agree with your reasons the F-bods are quick on your auto-X courses. I'm a little confused as to why you run the engine so slowly in auto-X. The quicker cars I've seen, especially in tight, low speed auto-X often shift very little and extend the engines to the high end of the rpm band. This allows them to run in a lower gear which multiplies the torque to the wheels. 2300-6500 is the same rpm band as 1400-4000 and uses a transmission gear which multiplies the engine torque by 1.63 times. I doubt you'll see that much improvement in other legal mods.

So you are not allowed to change cams. How is the cam shaft checked? If it's just lift and duration at .050 (or .020 or whatever), you should be able to have a custom cam made which will give you a lot more "area under the curve" in the higher rpm band and still check ok. It has been done before with good results.

Also, if you are allowed to update to LS1, why not go that way? Way expensive is my guess as to why not.

 

Well I haven't autoxed much this year because my wife and I had a son this July.

But at regional levels I do OK....

The Peru Pro I was 1.2 back from this years champ, would have been .6 back if not for a stupid red light.


BY FAR the best ESP drivetrain is an LT4 W/a 93' trans. Beyond that they are all pretty equal. Although the 95 Cobra R engine in an SN-95 Mustang probably trumps everything on torque.


I've heard some folks using alot of RPM at local events. Mostly by using 1st to much. National events ALWAYS have corners too fast for 1st and (what seems like) too slow for 2nd. Torque wins every time. Torque wins off the line, and that's pretty big in a Pro solo enviroment. How big...I'll play what if's just a little more.....

That same Pro if not for the red light I woudl have been 1.8 back from the leading Mustang. (that would have finished 3rd at Nationals if not for cones) I was loosing .5 just from 60 ft. .2-.3 on each side.


the purple 82 Camaro that won a couple years ago (L98-T-10) could start from a stop in 3rd gear with virtually NO problems.

 

Certainly the purple Camaro doesn't launch in 3rd. during competition. If half of your time defecit is in the first 60 feet, as I read your post, you either need more traction to control wheelspin, or more wheel torque which I read as more gear and not necessarily more low end grunt. Why the big loss here, BTW? I suspect everyone is on about the same tires.

The L98-T10 combo is probably very easy to drive with its fairly long, flat torque curve. Easy isn't always fast, but easy helps if you are not Michael Schumacher.

I'd go for flattening out the torque curve I had, which usually means pumping up the high end at the expense of absolute peak numbers and not losing much of the lower end. Valve timing is critical here, as I said before. You should then be able to compensate with either legal trans or rear end gears to get into the most area under the torque and hp curves.

Acceleration is the engine game in AX. You could use a simple computer program like Quarter Jr, or Max Race Software's stuff or others and look at what gearing and torque curve modification does for acceleration in each gear. By inputting various torque curves (L98, LT1, LT4, modified LT1 (cam change?)) and gears you should be able to determine which way to go.

I certainly agree that torque AT THE WHEELS wins if it is the correct and controllable amount, but that doesn't necessarily mean at the flywheel.

My highly opinionated $.02.

 

For reference, in ESP the cam must be stock. This doesn't mean it must check stock duration at a specified tappet lift, or that it must only meet stock peak lift specs. It means stock. You also can't run something like a LT4 cam in a LT1 with 1.6 rockers. You either get the whole LT4 long block or you don't run anything from it, except for the intake manifold. That's unrestricted, as Lonnie says.

 

So how do they check a cam to make sure it is "stock"?

How do thay check thay you haven't just slipped LT4 heads and valvetrain on an LT1 shortblock? Why would it matter?

I have watched SCCA Pro series Techs inspect Trans Am cars when folks like Rousch were racing. These were the best SCCA had. It amazed me how naive they were. If you aren't getting my drift, perhaps "cheater cam" is more blunt.

I'll ROFLMAO if you say that isn't being done in AX. It is done everwhere that people really want to win. Rules that can't be enforced aren't rules, they are suggestions.

It the combination of parts that matters, and the correct valve timing is right up there near or at the top of the list. If you want to run with the big dogs, you have to do what the big dogs do. Only their engine builders or cam suppliers know for sure.

 

I completely understand your point. I was a NMCA tech inspector a few years ago and saw a lot of it. In the end Lonnie is trying to build a car to the spirit of the rules. As such, he's asking for help that abides by those rules.

 

I appreciate that. SCCA was founded on such principles, I believe.

Earlier I disagreed with ESP's basic "low rpm-low numerical gearing" ideas as how to accelerate faster. That leads to making the engine perform better in the mid to upper (read over 5000) range and multiply torque with gears. I'm not sure he buys into that.

If different courses require different overall gearing, perhaps a trans swap or axle swap is indicated when racing on the Pro courses. This should still be within the letter and spirit of the rules.

FWIW: If winning is at all important, you can't leave much on the table, whether it be Soap Box Derby, SCCA autocross, Formula V, Nextel Cup or F1. I've not been involved in the latter two unfortunately, but in the others I know you need to be very close to the edge to be competitive. Some folks are perhaps over the edge. IMO it's the tech inspectors that determine where that edge is, and you need to know how they do that.

Oh yeah, being a great driver helps a ton! My observation is that $3 large invested in a good racing school often takes a lot more time out of your run than the same amount invested in the car, especially the engine.

My $.02